The thickness of the watch has to do with a lot of factors, as you have mentioned some:

1) Off the shelf movement, can't do much about it
2) Toughness? Some can be produced thicker to take harder beatings maybe?
3) Cost? At what price point they want to sell it?
4) Proportion? Case size Vs. Thickness

 

Reminds me of that olde saying, 'the thinner the watch, the higher the quality'; also applies to quietness.

 

One could make the argument that a thinner movement requires more difficult machining and assembly: smaller parts require tighter tolerances and are generally more difficult to assemble. However, I’m not sure that represents a watchmaker’s technical capability any more than it represents a design choice. Would you truly want a super thin and delicate movement in a sports watch? Serviceability may also be a consideration. Small watches with tight tolerances tend to be not only more difficult to service, but also can require more frequent service.
A watchmaker’s technical capability—to me—is the extent to which the watchmaker has made intelligent compromises in the design and construction of a movement so that such movement performs with accuracy, precision, autonomy and reliability over a long period with minimal intervention. The ETA 2892 is a great example.

 

There’s no doubting that the Daytona is slim but when comparing the price of the Rolex and the average 7750 equipped watch it’s possible to see where the money goes. To some extent it’s fair to say that thinness does reflect a watchmakers skill but if it means paying Daytona money for a Sinn then I’d rather wear a slightly more chubby chrono.

 

There's no doubting that the Daytona is slim but when comparing the price of the Rolex and the average 7750 equipped watch it's possible to see where the money goes. To some extent it's fair to say that thinness does reflect a watchmakers skill but if it means paying Daytona money for a Sinn then I'd rather wear a slightly more chubby chrono.

Let's not consider the further premium in the latest generation Daytona which reflects some more factors. Let's consider the previous generation. The price of a 3135-embedded sub may be 5-6 times that of a 2892-embedded dive watch ( Mido or Longines, for example). And the price of previous generation Daytona is roughly 6-7 times of a 7750-embedded chrono (such as Longines big eye). The premium between the two categories seems not much. I would say the difference is caused by yes first the engineering effort in making 4130 and second the higher complexity of a chrono and lastly the heritage of Daytona.

So when someone is justified to buy a sub he shall be also justified to buy Daytona if he wants a Rolex chrono?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

We have all come across and handled various types of mechanical watches. Some are very thin, some are moderate, some are not thin enough, and some are quite thick. I am wondering is the thickness of a watch a partial demonstration of a watchmaker's technical capability in movement/watch making?

Generally speaking, yes. In the top segment, there is quite an arms race between Piaget (Altiplano) and Bulgari (Octo Finissimo) in making the slimmest watch with this or that complication. In my opinion Piaget even sacrificed the beauty in order to make it even thinner.

But very often the reduced thickness has a negative effect on precision, power reserve or robustness. But with all these factors being equal, one can say that the slimmer movement is usually considered as the superior construction.

 

Piaget won the 'thin wars' in the early 60's.

Generally speaking, yes. In the top segment, there is quite an arms race between Piaget (Altiplano) and Bulgari (Octo Finissimo) in making the slimmest watch with this or that complication. In my opinion Piaget even sacrificed the beauty in order to make it even thinner.

View attachment 13709321

View attachment 13709331

But very often the reduced thickness has a negative effect on precision, power reserve or robustness. But with all these factors being equal, one can say that the slimmer movement is usually considered as the superior construction.

 

GS and Omega watches are thick because of their cases and casebacks. Movement wise, I don’t think they are thicker by much if at all. Rolex using only solid stainless steel casebacks shaves off some mm vs their competitors for sure.

 

In my opinion, thickness can be a demonstration of a watchmaker’s technical capability, but only if that is the objective of the watchmaker, and if they are participating in that competition. In the cases of the watches posted above in some replies, yes, thinness is the objective of particular watches, for bragging rights (And it's certainly a good way to display prowess). That's not to say that a watch that is thick lacks capability as a whole, it may be that it's simply not the objective for that watch. In the case of the chunkier Seikos and Omegas for example, I don't think it was their objective to make a thin watch, and they were incapable of doing so, rather they chose to prioritize other technical capabilities in something else.

Also if I generalize, the last 10 or so years, watches have become bigger/thicker than in the 90's and prior, that's not to say that the technical capability has gotten worse over time, but that market was driven to make bigger watches in order to sell them.

 

In my opinion, thickness can be a demonstration of a watchmaker's technical capability, but only if that is the objective of the watchmaker, and if they are participating in that competition. In the cases of the watches posted above in some replies, yes, thinness is the objective of particular watches, for bragging rights (And it's certainly a good way to display prowess). That's not to say that a watch that is thick lacks capability as a whole, it may be that it's simply not the objective for that watch. In the case of the chunkier Seikos and Omegas for example, I don't think it was their objective to make a thin watch, and they were incapable of doing so, rather they chose to prioritize other technical capabilities in something else.

Also if I generalize, the last 10 or so years, watches have become bigger/thicker than in the 90's and prior, that's not to say that the technical capability has gotten worse over time, but that market was driven to make bigger watches in order to sell them.

Fair points.

Now I am still curious about the Grand Seiko. I believe per its design philosophy it might not participate the big watch trend over the last two decades. And considering that GS has not done more intensive business activities until perhaps recent several years, they may not considered as part of the big watch movement.

So now the only explanation perhaps comes to its "choice" as you mentioned to prioritize other technical capabilities in other aspects. What I am curious is what those aspects may be? I don't believe GS is continuing to prioritize its technical capability at finishing (which is possibly one of the major merit of GS) because my observation is that the degree of finishing of GS watches remains at the same level over the past five years. I don't see much difference in the degree of finishing of cases, dials, hands, and indices between SBGH005 and SBGJ227.

When SBGJ227 was introduced earlier this year, while it's immensely praised for its beauty, many people see that its thickness is over 14 mm and consider it too chunky. Wouldn't it be even more attractive if GS can maintain all its finishing while making the watch less chunky? What's their consideration anyway?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

THINness of a watch, can indeed demonstrate a watch designer's/maker's skill......

Apologies for the flyby pedantry....

Cheerz,

Alan

 

If anyone out there ever gets the opportunity to check out the Piaget auto with the Caliber 12P, you'll be amazed. I measured the watch, 4.88mm thick. It might
take some convincing that it's an automatic.

 

I think that we should differentiate between the thickness of the movement and the thickness of the watch in which it resides. As the fashion for thicker watches came about one could not rely on the thickness of the watch to judge the thickness of the movement.

The Zenith Elite movement is 3.28mm including rotor, with two complications (date and dual time) it is 3.75mm. and was launched as an ultra thin movement with a power reserve of over 50 hrs. I find it exceptionally comfortable but it is not everyone's cup of tea and I was told on here "that watch is too thin".

It is shown here with the original Seiko Cocktail Time which feels like a thick watch, thanks in part to the display back which reveals a very plain movement.

 

The thinnest automatic with central seconds and calendar is the Lemania 8810/Longines 990 at 2.96mm. I don’t think it’s any less robust than a 3.28mm Zenith Elite or 3.6mm 2892. All those are more elegantly designed to get that flatness, in my view. But they are not as robust as the Rolex 3135, in terms of running for a long time with lack-of-service wear. Thickness should provide some tangible benefit.

The Zenith El Primero is about 6.5mm thick—significantly less than a 7750. My Captain Chronograph is 12.5mm thick, quite thin for a chronograph, given that it is larger around than the Daytona. The Frederic Piguet 1185 is a bit thinner, and some modular chronographs can be thin if built on a thin enough tractor.

Rick “better design is better, and thinness usually requires clever design” Denney

 

Considering overall trend for bigger watches thin watches not a thing today on a grander scale of things.
i think a lot of companies abandon development of thinner and thinner watches.
Also normal/bigger watches are more robust thus less warranty problems.
I think minimal thickness will be determined by overall rigidity of the case make it too thin and it will bend like iPhone did.
Unless manufacturer will drop any shock resistance....

 

Generally speaking, definitly ..

Poslano sa mog SM-A500FU koristeći Tapatalk

 

Definitely on the quality! Especially with chronographs.

 

Thickness (or smallness) is a measure of technical capability, but is only one measure. Heck, movement is only one measure. A very well designed case with a stock movement can still be a good watch. And sometimes one chooses to make a movement big to match the size of the watch. IWC, as much as I dislike their products, are a great example of this. They are a good watch company, and I suspect they have the capability to make many of their movements smaller. But given the size of their watches, they'd rather make the movement fill out the watch (and the watch back) versus some very large watches with small movements that have an open caseback that looks like the movement is inside the hole of a donut.

 

Probably yes.

However thin movements are fragile movements, and expensive.

So I am happy with a good old 7750 and a bit taller case.